ArticleBMJ open2025
Measuring and valuing patient and caregiver productivity costs: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring, valuing, and incorporating patient and caregiver productivity costs in economic evaluations: a scoping review and environmental scan.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEconomic evaluations are essential for informing healthcare resource allocation. When conducted from a societal perspective, they may include productivity costs such as paid and unpaid productivity losses for patients and their caregivers. Although several methods exist to measure and value productivity costs, there is limited methodological consensus on which methods should be used. This scoping review aims to synthesise existing methods for measuring and valuing patient and caregiver productivity costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework, enhanced by subsequent methodological guidance from Levac and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The six stages include identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; selecting studies; charting the data; collating, summarising and reporting the results; and consultation. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit from 1996 to July 2025. Eligible sources will include peer-reviewed literature that reports methods for the measurement or valuation of productivity costs related to paid or unpaid work among patients or caregivers. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will include types of productivity costs, instruments used, valuation approaches, as well as recommendations on preferred measurement and valuation methods. Results will be synthesised thematically and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as this review will rely exclusively on publicly available literature and does not involve human participants or the use of primary data. The findings will first be shared with Canada's Drug Agency as a report and then disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and academic presentations to inform future research and practice. REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FK9D4).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.